SFJaykey

Well, you throw enough of them out there, one's bound to be new. For "accomplishing the mission," you could define one, some, or all of the large VL flags as the "mission" flags. Other flags would still earn points as secondary objectives. Perhaps the "mission" flags could display the number of turns left to take that particular flag...when this counted down to zero it might not disappear, but change to a small flag. There's your penalty for slow-pokes. When playing with dynamic flags, the attacker could choose the mission flag from among the large flags placed by the designer. The other flags might still earn small-flag points as secondary objectives rather than being "Bogus." Yes I guess you should have to hold the flag until game end, which would occur a variable number of turns after the mission flag(s) was captured, to allow for counterattacks. There should also be a fixed turn limit, like we have now, to keep battles from dragging on forever, but with the mission-based scoring system it could be substantially longer than we typically have now. On a related issue, I think flags that are captured, then moved past, should still count as "held" unless the opponent retakes them. The game already calculates a "front" in between battles of an operation. Why not have this calculation take place each turn, and flags that are behind the attacking force's front count as captured?

Not to mention the gunner shouting: "Stop rotating the **** tank! I almost had him!"

How about a view level "0", where you are not looking over the unit's shoulder, but the camera shows exactly what the unit "sees?" The unit itself might become invisible to avoid weird graphic effects. For buttoned tanks, there could be a "window" effect simulating periscopes and viewports...

Schoerner- I agree some scenarios seem too time pressured. I think part of the reason for the time limits is to balance games vs the AI: since the human player is a lot "smarter" than the AI the turn limit puts some more pressure on and helps the defending AI out a bit. Also, the AI is not as careful with its ammo as a human player can be. Scenarios for two human players often benefit from a few extra turns. Re: realism, in some situations I'm sure it is realistic to rush the attack....units were often ordered to advance to certain phase lines by a given deadline in order to keep up with the rest of the front, or to open the way for follow-on forces. Timing was very important in many battle plans so yes I think they would have to rush it sometimes. But I also agree that the turn limit is sometimes _too_ restrictive. Maybe it would be better to provide an option of removing the turn limit, and instead give the attacker points for accomplishing the mission quickly? [ June 03, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Moon's reply was directed at formation-type orders....I think what Schoerner is talking about is getting units to follow, eg along a road or maybe a gully. I'd really like to see smarter "following" behavior; maybe it would work even better if you set the second unit's waypoint on the _unit_ you wanted it to follow. The second unit would move to the place the first one vacated, and from there follow its path exactly, stopping just before collision. Yes it would be nice to have some control of endpoint and spacing, but this is a shortcut we're talking about here....don't want to add too much complexity or micro-management.

I was waiting for you. Will resend...

Thanks Kevin, Steve, and Michael...this is all great stuff! Since MD has the book Kevin mentioned, I suspect the map on MD's website incorporates the info from it. Still, it would be neat to see what else is in there....photos might give me a better idea of how to depict the terrain, etc.

Wow, Kevin, if by "you," you meant me, then that would be awesome. Please send your email and I'll send my snail mail address....I'll be happy to pay for postage, both ways if you want the book back when I'm done. My email is sfjaykey48@yahoo.com If by "you," you meant Dorosh, who is the real GD enthusiast, then I'd be happy to fwd the book to him after extracting what info I can. Or if you'd rather send photocopies (or scans), I'd be most interested in maps of the Luchesa action, timelines, and related OoBs. Narrative would be great, but I won't ask you to scan the whole chapter!

I've heard this often, but if 6th Army had continued to the Caspian, rather than detouring into the streets of Stalingrad, wouldn't they have been even more overextended and at least equally exposed? Wouldn't a Soviet flank attack have still cut them off? As far as the high water mark, I think that phrase applies to the greatest extent of land occupied, which I guess is Fall 1942. But in terms of having an actual chance to win the war, it would have to be outside Moscow in Fall '41. At that point, Germany still had a real chance to knock out the USSR (or most people on both sides thought they did), and Pearl Harbor hadn't happened. Once Hitler declared war on the US (which he didn't have to do, BTW....the US _might_ have stayed out of Europe if he hadn't declared first), he had finally, certainly bitten off more than he could chew. Not that the US was all-powerful, but Britain and Russia were already overloading the camel's back, and the US coming in was the last straw.

In one of my first PBEMs I played the Germans, defending in '41. Expecting to face heavy armor I bought a 50mmL60 and a Henschel. The 50 was set up in a trench, in scattered trees, and nicely keyholed to give it flank shots against anything coming through the most likely approach. The Henschel showed up and made a couple of strafes, and I saw a smoke plume in my opponent's rear area. Great! I thought: this is working! Found out later he'd nailed a T-26. Then on his last strafe, he targeted the well-hidden 50mm! And killed 3 crewmen IIRC, panicking the gun, just as my opponent's heavy armor approached. I still buy air sometimes, since few people do and I like to see the look on my opponents' faces. It's usually something like :mad:

So KG Kassnitz, with the Fusilier Regiment and the Stugs, was likely the force that counterattacked south of Belyi early in December. By elimination, KG Kohler should have had the tank battalion, and elements of flak, artillery and AT. And maybe the Pioneers. Considering the chaos you (and my sources) mention, I may take some liberties with the force allocation: I like Marders! I'll get started on the map. Speaking of which, I am working with comments like "a long narrow valley lined with forests and frozen swamps...non-existent or terrible roads and very difficult conditions for movement...a salient 8km wide by 15 km long," etc. Do your sources have anything to add to that? (My map won't be 15km long, but I'll try to get the ratio right.) Thanks again,

Thanks, Michael, that is already quite helpful. FWIW I don't expect to find enough details to recreate the battle completely....and even if I could it is too large for CMBB and would need to be scaled. Hopefully, I will be able to capture the "feel" of the Luchesa engagement in terms of terrain, weather, objectives, force types and etc. I just tried a QB for Dec '42, Central to see what the standard rarity would suggest for unit types. BFC sez (via the rarity generator) that Marder III (early) was the most common variant for that date, followed by the II. Stug would be the F8, followed by B and F. I'll take all this under advisement and make sure the latest variant of each type is well represented....as you said, GD was always "special." Also the OoB on the website mentions 2 LMGs per squad, so I think I am looking at Panzergrenadiers. For unit quality, how does a mix heavy on vets, with some regulars and greens (replacements), and a sprinkling of cracks sound? [edited because I somehow skipped one of MD's paragraphs first time through.] Can you tell me any more about the composition of "Kampfgruppes Kohler and Warschenauer," depicted on your map, and their roles in the battle? Thanks....maybe you'd like to be my alpha playtester? [ June 01, 2003, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Some the bigger caliber Russian stuff is so slow that preplanned bombardment is the only answer. This can arrive on turn 1 or any turn thereafter, and is always accurate. Takes a little guesswork as to defender's location, and timing, but can be very effective.

I just read an article on Operation Mars, the failed Soviet offensive against the Rshev salient in November-December 1942. I think it was a condensed version of the book on the subject by David Glanz. Seems like there is lots of good scenario fodder there...in particular the Russian assault up the Luchesa River valley looks like it could be scaled to make a good CMBB battle, or series of battles. Problem was the article dealt with the entire huge operation and there are a lot of details left to fudge... Can anyone tell me: How much and what variants of armor did the Grossdeutschland commit at the Luchesa Valley? I hope Michael Dorosh checks in on this thread: his excellent website on the GD gives some ideas as to the tanks in the GD armored batallion at about this time, but I wonder about the specific variants of Stugs and Marders. Also, I am wondering if the title of "Grenadier Regiment" means I should use Panzergrenadier unit types, though at this time the GD was still an "Infantry Division." Suggestions on the Russian Oob would also be welcome...my sources put the armor mix of tank corps attacking elsewhere in the operation at about 55% T-34, 40% T-70, and 5% KV, but I have no direct OoB info on the 3rd Tank Corps, which struck up the Luchesa, or on specific variants. Any suggestions for maps of the area (or elsewhere about the Rshev salient) that depict terrain at a scale that would be useful for CMBB, or detailed accounts that would be useful in designing the scenario? (MD: what is the scale of the little Luchesa map on your website?) My local library is somewhat lacking, so online resources would be most helpful... Thanks in advance...

Thanks for the additional comments, Jason! I should start searching under your member # when I want to find detailed answers to these questions. If you do decide to pull together an actual guide, I'd be happy to contribute to your compensation....do you eat pizza?

Yes, thanks, that's the one I was thinking of. I wonder about one number, at least: is it true that foxholes in woods or pines only give a 1% cover bonus, compared to woods and pines w/o foxholes? Where can I find JasonC's Advanced CMBB Strategy Guide? [ May 30, 2003, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

I recall a very helpful post a couple of months ago that laid out the exact percentages of cover and concealment offered by each type of terrain, and I think fortifications. But now I can't find it...must not be searching the right terms. Any help? And BTW when I ordered the Strategy Guide I kind of hoped this sort of information would be included, along with the delays of artillery FOs, things like that. Maybe the 3rd edition.

FWIW I recently posted a town map to the Scenario Depot; it's called Vital Junction. It's based on old photos and maps of my hometown, so is quite realistic, at least if you were to transport a 1920s California farm town to the Eastern Front! It's setup for an Axis assault, but the setup zones can be easily changed if you want to go the other way, or do some city fighting. Mapmaking is fun and originally I thought I would be making lots of them, but it took a lot of hours to satisfy myself with this one, my first. I'll probably produce some more eventually but it'll be a while. So, Chad, if you want to take on the challenge I'd like some village or rural maps for attack and defense, with some covered approaches, maybe 1800 by 1200m....I like to have some elbow room! And thanks for asking! [edited map size request...original 2400x1800 included knee and hip room!] [ May 29, 2003, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Beautiful! I think "textured w/o border" is my favorite at first glance, but I'll try both. Thanks!

I like the smaller size, but think it's a little light: the very light yellow should be at the center only, with the next darker shade making up most of the texture, and an irregular "roiling" orangish rim. IMO! I hope you keep at it as I'd enjoy the luxury of choosing between a more colorful version and Malakovski's effort at the same mod....I like the irregular shape of your flash better (even for explosions).

I like it, but since you still want feedback I think it's a little too big....half that diameter would work for me. Thanks for taking this one on!

I agree with most of the complaints that "probing" lessens suspense and gives the player an extra advantage. To be frank, I began resorting to it mainly to make up for my deficiencies as a player. I am getting better, but when I first started CMBB I had a really hard time reading terrain and figuring out where to expect the enemy, and how to choose the right line of attack. Also, I have often found it difficult to move with what seems to me to be proper caution and still achieve my objectives by end of game. Obviously, these confessions identify me as a less-than-superlative player. The fact that I have "probed" almost exclusively vs the AI, and still not won consistently as the attacker, seems to underline this. (I have only "probed" once vs a human opponent, and only did it that time because he had already played the scenario vs the Ai and I wanted a fair chance.) As I gain experience and improve my tactics I'm finding it less necessary to "probe" and still have a decent chance of winning, but the technique has been quite helpful and I think shortened my "learning curve" quite a bit. And by playing QBs and "probing" during my learning stages in CMBB, I have managed to avoid "spoiling" the great human-made scenarios while I learned tactics and how to play the game. Lots of good suggestions in the thread. I admit I never thought to open a scenario and just add 10 turns or so to allow for the recce...I may just do that from now on and never probe again. Scenarios with two setup zones for the attacker are a good idea that I will try. One zone for recon forces setup forward, main force to the rear. But I'll try setting an adequte number of turns and playing it all straight thru from the beginning, rather than restarting. And variable game length in operations is a tweak I hope we will see in future game versions.

Scenarios also have forces assigned, reinforcements scheduled, and briefings. QB maps are just maps. If you can find it I recommend the "ODMapPack"; OD stands for "Old Dog." The maps combine attractiveness (IMO) with playability. If you like the play MEs, his ME maps are designed symmetrically so each side gets a fair shot at the flags. If you can't find it I may still have the zipfile to email you directly....contact me via my profile. There are also other good maps, the "Church and Orchard" map is one.

Nevermind: Sounds like we have similar attitudes toward the game. If you'd like to PBEM in CMBB sometime drop me a line, I can usually play 3-5 turns/week and would like to try some scenarios double-blind; QBs on human-made maps are ok too. Email via the profile. [ May 16, 2003, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

I agree the time limits can make it difficult to move with what seems appropriate caution, and still have a chance to achieve the scenario objectives. But it feels like cheating to open the scenario from the other side and see exactly what they're got, where their setup zones are, etc....and takes a lot of the suspense and fun out, too. In lieu of a proper intelligence brieifing in many scenarios, one of my solutions is to "probe" the scenario, simulating a recon by light forces. I posted about this to an earlier thread; here are the details again in case you find it helpful. To conduct a "probe" I start up the scenario and choose a small scouting element from my forces, for example an infantry platoon or a couple of ACs, and set them up forward in my allowed setup area. The rest of my force remains back near the map edge, in deep cover. I play the first 1/3 or so of the scenario's turns vs the AI using _only_ the small recon force, probing cautiously to locate enemy positions and identify the type of forces. It goes pretty quickly, because I am only issuing orders to a small part of my force and there isn't much actual combat. Then I restart the scenario and play normally. If playing the "real" game vs the AI, sometimes it will relocate its units, sometimes not, but I go in with some idea of what I'm up against. Against human players I don't "probe" the scenario unless they have also probed or played it themselves. "Probing" can be used in QBs if you save the game at the setup phase, probe, then reload the saved setup.